PIAKO RIVER WHARVES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5137, 10 June 1927, Page 3

PIAKO RIVER WHARVES.

QUESTION OF SALE TO COUNTY. DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL. The- Hauraki Plains County Council had a long, friendly discussion a.t its meeting yesterday concerning the old question of the control of the Piako River and Waitakaruru wharves. The acting chief drainage engineer, Lands Dra.inage Department (Mr RG. McMorran), wrote drawing attention to the fact that during last year proposals were brought forward for the council to purchase certain wharves on the Hauraki Plains from the Lands Department. Since October 14 nothing further had been done, and the department desired to be advised whether the idea of purchasing the- wharves had been abandoned or whethel- the proposition was still being seriously considered. The chairman reported that the council had communicated with the department and had been advised that the department would not be prepared to reduce the price of the wharves. The council could not levy a charge- on all cargo in the river, but could make by-laws compelling all cargo to be landed and could charge accordingly. In reply to the thiid question, the department was prepared to expend £250 in improving the present structures. Now the department had asked the direct question as to whether the council would take over the wharves or not, and it was desirable to come- to a decision either at the present time or at a future special ineeting. Cr Mayn said that he had made up his mind not to support the council taking over the- wharves., ” Cr. Harris expressed a similar view. Cr. Mayn pointed out that the a,mount of traffic by boat was likely . to decrease with the improvement in motor transport and the consti action of the railway. The chairman pointed out that the department wished to* place the onus of abandoning some of the wharves on to the council, and any move in that direction would raise a "hornet s nest.” Cr. Hicks asked what would become of the wharves if the council did not assume control. A member said that the Thames Harbour Board might take the wharves. The chairman pointed out that the council would be affected, ii? regard to the- large quantities of road metal landed over the wharves. Cr. Mayn argued that if the council took over the wharves it would have to make a charge for metal landed over the wharves. This would be- only fair, as, for instance, the Patetonga riding would not be likely to get any metal by river. Cr. Reid asked whether, in the event of the county taking over the wharves, the council agree to exclude those portions of the county which would not be benefited. The Turtia. wharf was under the Thames Harbour Board, the Netherton wharves were- not concerned, and the Waitakaruru district used a private wharf, as the Lands Department’s • wharf wa,s practically useless and was very seldom used, even by thedepartment itself. Cr. Harris pointed out that the department had built the wharves for its own purpose in opening the- district. The purpose of the wharves had been fulfilled, and the department should realise this and give them, to the county rather than attempt io sell them. ' Cr. Reid drew attention tor the fact that the working account of the Netherton wharf showed a loss on last year’s working of. over £2O. Cr. Parfitt pointed out that the Local Government Loans Board would not be likely to sanction a loan for the purchase- of the wharves. Cr. Walton asked what advantage it would be for the Harbour Board to take over the wharves. As a test the chairman moved that in view of the diminishing utility of the wharves and the probable shortness of the life- of same, the council was prepared to take them over provided the department would sell them for a nominal price. In reply to a question the chairman • said that a nominal price would be, as Cr, Miller bad suggested, a shilling. Cr. Parfitt seconded. Crs. Mayn and Harris opposed the proposal, Cr. Mayn saying that the department should maintain the wharves and make a charge for the purpose.

A Councillor: Well, move that the department be asked to do it. Cr. Mayn .* Not on your life. The ratepayers would then lay the blame for having to pay wharf dues at the door of the council, Cr. Harris moved as an amendment that the council was prepared to further consider taking over the wharves provided the department was prepared to hand them over at a nominal rental.

This wa.s seconded by Cr. Mayn, and on being put to the meeting was only As another amendment Cr. Hicks moved that the council decide before replying whether it would take over the wharves at any price and under any conditions. Seconded by Cr. Mayn and carried, Crs. Miller and Parfitt voting against, As a fresh motion Cr. Walton moved his original resolution. This was declared lost, Crs, Miller, Parfitt, and Walton supporting. The council then discussed means of paying the capital cost and maintenance. Crs. Mfidgwick and Reid desired a rating area defined which would be liable for any deficiency in the amount of wharfage dues collected and used for the purpose of maintenance.

Cr. Harris pointed out that a responsibility for any deficiency could not be placed on any rating area without obtaining the prior consent of the ratepayers Cr. Madgwick contended that the deficiency could be charged to certain riding accounts. Cr. Mayn moved that the council was not prepared to take over all the wharves on the department’s schedule but was prepared to discuss the matter ovei® with the Chief brainage engineer.

He explained that the Patetonga riding did not need its wharf, and Cr. Harris pointed out that even if the Waitakaruru wharf was given free the council “needed its head read” if it accepted it.

Cr, Harris seconded. Cr. Parfitt asked what wharves would be excluded. It was decided to take a vote before discussing this, and the motion was defeat -I.

Cr. Parfitt moved that the council was of opinion that the wharves were of some value to the county, and that the council negotiate with the department. Cr. Harris pointed out that the council had agreed that the present structures were only worth paying a shilling for.

The motion lapsed for want of a seconder, A new line was advanced by Cr. Mayn, who moved that the council would not purchase the wharves.

This also lapsed for want of a seconder.

The chairman then moved his original motion with an addition

The motion was thus, that in view of the diminishing utility of the wharves, and the probable shortness of the life of sfjme, the council was prepared to take them over provided the department would sell them for a nominal price, and that the revenue for the maintenance of the wharves be derived by way of charges on goods coming into or going out of the district served by the wharves. Cr. Mayn suggested that the council purchase the wharves if it could get them for a shilling, and then abandon them. He was against anything that would bring a wharfage charge onto settlers, seeing that they had not paid anything in the past. If the council abandoned the- wharves the liability for the maintenance of those wharves which were used would be a concern of the users alone. They could raise a loan if necessary’.

Cr. Walton pointe*d out that it would be unbusinesslike to purchase the wharves, and then abandon them. The chairman’s motion was then put and carried, only Crs. Mayn and Harris voting against it. The clerk was instructed to send a copy to the chief drainage engineer, with an invitation that he the matter with the council